Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 5th 12, 02:25 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Time Line for USCF Memberships and Revenues

If you could look at the general membership and revenue curves for the
USCF you would see that from the early 1980s up until 1996 there was a
straight upward line. Every year in each of those years membership
went up and revenues went up. There was also a positive surplus every
year. In 1996, the USCF had nearly $2 million in the LMA which was a
general fund for the protection of Life Members. In 1996 the USCF had
just about 90,000 members, either slightly over and or slightly under
90,000. Total revenues for that year were $6.5 million. There was a
slight deficit in 1996, the first year of a deficit after many years
of steady surpluses.

Unfortunately, this slight deficit caused alarm and caused the new
governing board to make changes. One change they made was they got rid
of the existing Executive Director who had been with the USCF during
all these years of growth and surpluses. A new man was brought in
instead.

The next three years were basically flat. There was still about $6.5
million in revenues every year and slightly less than 90,000 members.
There was a small loss every year. The LMA still had about $2 million
in it at the end of 1999.

Unfortunately, the 1999-2000 fiscal year was when things really
started to go south. In almost every year from then until the present
there has been a decline in membership, a decline in services, and a
decline in revenues. The problem is we do not know why these things
started happening. There are essentially no surviving financial
records for the entire period from 1999 to 2003. There were financial
records, as we had an accounting staff working and producing reports
throughout that period. However, at the US Open in Los Angeles in 2003
it was discovered that the entire $2 million in the LMA had vanished.
The Executive Director had vanished too, never to be seen but only
occasionally heard from since. His laptop disappeared shortly
thereafter too.

When I got on the board in 2006 the first thing I wanted to do was
find out what happened to the $2 million. We got complete reports
based on good records for the period from 2004 to 2006 but there was
nothing, zero, from the period before 2003.

We know that for every year from 1999 to 2003 there was a reported
loss, but the losses were small. I think the biggest loss for any of
those years was about $50,000. This does not explain how the entire
LMA with $2 million in it could have disappeared between 1999 and
2003. Even if we lost $50,000 every year for those four years, that is
still only $200,000. It does not explain how we could have lost the
entire $2 million.

The USCF President during most of those years had a passion for
secrecy. He would not even tell the other board members what was going
on. This turned out to be most unfortunate, as we still have no idea
what happened during those years when outwardly everything seemed to
be OK. The records for that entire period have simply disappeared.

Notice that I have not named the names of anybody during this period.
This is because we really do not know who the good guys and who the
bad guys were during this period.

Ever since, the trend has been to cut the losses by reducing services.
For example, regular members and most life members no longer receive
Chess Life magazine. However, every time services are cut, fewer
members renew. I do not know what the current figures are any more. I
think that revenues are under $2.5 million or about 1/3rd of what they
were until 1999. I believe that Joe Nanna reported at the delegates
meeting in Orlando that there were only about 17,000 paid adult
members left. Most members now are either Life Members who pay no dues
or scholastic members who pay low dues.

This explains why the USCF is in such dire difficulties now. There are
few good reasons why anybody would want to join the USCF now. Probably
a lot of the new members think that things are the way they used to be
when all members received a magazine. If they knew the truth, almost
nobody would join us any more.
  #2   Report Post  
Old April 6th 12, 02:56 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2009
Posts: 360
Default Time Line for USCF Memberships and Revenues

On Apr 5, 6:25*am, samsloan wrote:
If you could look at the general membership and revenue curves for the
USCF you would see that from the early 1980s up until 1996 there was a
straight upward line. Every year in each of those years membership
went up and revenues went up. There was also a positive surplus every
year. In 1996, the USCF had nearly $2 million in the LMA which was a
general fund for the protection of Life Members. In 1996 the USCF had
just about 90,000 members, either slightly over and or slightly under
90,000. Total revenues for that year were $6.5 million. There was a
slight deficit in 1996, the first year of a deficit after many years
of steady surpluses.

Unfortunately, this slight deficit caused alarm and caused the new
governing board to make changes. One change they made was they got rid
of the existing Executive Director who had been with the USCF during
all these years of growth and surpluses. A new man was brought in
instead.

The next three years were basically flat. There was still about $6.5
million in revenues every year and slightly less than 90,000 members.
There was a small loss every year. The LMA still had about $2 million
in it at the end of 1999.

Unfortunately, the 1999-2000 fiscal year was when things really
started to go south. In almost every year from then until the present
there has been a decline in membership, a decline in services, and a
decline in revenues. The problem is we do not know why these things
started happening. There are essentially no surviving financial
records for the entire period from 1999 to 2003. There were financial
records, as we had an accounting staff working and producing reports
throughout that period. However, at the US Open in Los Angeles in 2003
it was discovered that the entire $2 million in the LMA had vanished.
The Executive Director had vanished too, never to be seen but only
occasionally heard from since. His laptop disappeared shortly
thereafter too.

When I got on the board in 2006 the first thing I wanted to do was
find out what happened to the $2 million. We got complete reports
based on good records for the period from 2004 to 2006 but there was
nothing, zero, from the period before 2003.

We know that for every year from 1999 to 2003 there was a reported
loss, but the losses were small. I think the biggest loss for any of
those years was about $50,000. This does not explain how the entire
LMA with $2 million in it could have disappeared between 1999 and
2003. Even if we lost $50,000 every year for those four years, that is
still only $200,000. It does not explain how we could have lost the
entire $2 million.

The USCF President during most of those years had a passion for
secrecy. He would not even tell the other board members what was going
on. This turned out to be most unfortunate, as we still have no idea
what happened during those years when outwardly everything seemed to
be OK. The records for that entire period have simply disappeared.

Notice that I have not named the names of anybody during this period.
This is because we really do not know who the good guys and who the
bad guys were during this period.

Ever since, the trend has been to cut the losses by reducing services.
For example, regular members and most life members no longer receive
Chess Life magazine. However, every time services are cut, fewer
members renew. I do not know what the current figures are any more. I
think that revenues are under $2.5 million or about 1/3rd of what they
were until 1999. I believe that Joe Nanna reported at the delegates
meeting in Orlando that there were only about 17,000 paid adult
members left. Most members now are either Life Members who pay no dues
or scholastic members who pay low dues.

This explains why the USCF is in such dire difficulties now. There are
few good reasons why anybody would want to join the USCF now. Probably
a lot of the new members think that things are the way they used to be
when all members received a magazine. *If they knew the truth, almost
nobody would join us any more.


For once Sam I'll agree with you...at least on some things.There are
3 things that are leading to the demise of the USCF:

1) The USCF *use* to be an ADULT organization, today most of the
membership is comprised of children many of whom are barely out of
dippers.

2) The *children* pay annual dues which are but a fraction of what an
ADULT member pays, hence the ADULTS are subsiding the children.

3) Lawsuits. Yes Sam your many frivolous lawsuits are yet another
reason that ADULT members are leaving.

While I am not saying that scholastic players should be given the
boot, they should be constrained to their own little ghetto called the
the United States Scholastic Chess Federation. If they want to join
the USCF, here would be the conditions:

1) The child must have obtained the age of 12, and if under the age of
18, s/he must be sponsored by 3 USCF members in good standing: One
member must be a rated Expert or above; one must be a Class A rated
player or above, and one must be a Class B rated player or above. In
addition they must be nominated by either a Chess Coach or Parent
neither of which may be one of the 3 sponsors.

2) The child must have a minimum of an *established* USCF rating of
1200 or above -- no provisional ratings are acceptable.

3) Once accepted for full USCF, the child *will* pay FULL ADULT DUES,
no exceptions.

Many ADULT players, especially the Senior Players, have no desire to
sit down across the table from some snot nosed brat who is receiving
coaching lessons from rated Class A and above players, while the
average adult does not. This has lead to ratings deflation, as the
children are frequently UNDER rated. To make matters worse the ADULT
players are be force to subsidize the self same snot nosed brats.

The one thing that ADULT players control that children do not is their
wallets -- ADULT players, especially the "Senior" Adults -- are
closing their wallets and walking. The USCF offers them precious
little for the amount of money they need to shell out in dues,
especially given that online chess clubs offer far more than the USCF
does. For the alt who *may* play in 1-2 tournament per year, is it
really worth paying $40+ /yr just so one can have an "official" USCF
rating?!? Especially in these economic times?!? Some may say yes, but
more and more are saying NO!!!!

Until the problem of these "Scholastic" players are dealt with in
regards to both how they interface with ADULTS, and the low
membership dues they pay vs that of an ADULT, you can expect more and
more ADULTS slam their wallets SHUT and walk!!!
  #3   Report Post  
Old April 6th 12, 02:45 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2005
Posts: 131
Default Time Line for USCF Memberships and Revenues

On Apr 5, 6:56*pm, Bobcat wrote:

For once Sam *I'll agree with you...at least on some things.There are
3 things that are leading to the demise of the USCF:

2) The *children* pay annual dues which are but a fraction of what an
ADULT member pays, hence the *ADULTS are subsiding the children.

While I am not saying that scholastic players should be given the
boot, they should be constrained to their own little ghetto called the
the United States Scholastic Chess Federation. If they want to join
the USCF, here would be the conditions:

1) The child must have obtained the age of 12, and if under the age of
18, s/he must be sponsored by 3 USCF members in good standing: One
member must be a rated Expert or above; one must be a Class A rated
player or above, and one must be a Class B *rated player or above. In
addition they must be nominated by either a Chess Coach or Parent
neither of which may be one of the 3 sponsors.

2) The child must have a minimum of an **established* *USCF rating of
1200 or above -- no provisional ratings are acceptable.

3) Once accepted for full USCF, the child *will* pay FULL ADULT DUES,
no exceptions.

Many ADULT players, especially the Senior Players, have no *desire to
sit down across the table from some snot nosed brat who *is receiving
coaching lessons from rated Class A and above players, while the
average adult does not. This has lead to ratings deflation, as the
children are frequently UNDER rated. To *make matters worse the ADULT
players are be force to subsidize the self same snot nosed brats.

The one thing that ADULT players control that children do not is their
wallets -- ADULT players, especially the "Senior" Adults -- are
closing their wallets and walking. The USCF offers them precious
little for the amount *of money they need to shell out in dues,

Until the *problem of these "Scholastic" players are dealt with in
regards *to both *how they interface with ADULTS, and *the low
membership dues they pay vs that of an ADULT, you can expect more and
more ADULTS slam their wallets *SHUT and walk!!!


Is there a full moon? Scholastic kids must be sponsored? Bobcat's
rant is without any basis in reality.

The USCF President wrote in a letter this year that over half of
USCF's dues are paid by scholastic players. Just dues mind you.
When the profits from the national scholastics are figured in, fully
two thirds of USCF revenues come from "the self same snot nosed
brats".
It is delusional to believe USCF would survive without scholastics.
While the adult population ages and declines in numbers, it is the
scholastic community that is underserved. When budget cuts came, the
first person to go was the scholastic director. Why? Because the
kids are not represented by the vote. Neither they nor their parents
get a vote. The voters are the graying base. When Bobcat says the
"Senior Adults" should shut their wallets and walk. More likely the
coffin lid will shut and there will be no more walking or talking. It
is inevitable. As the senior players dwindle, what next? Just one
example. What will happen to chess when Bill Goichberg passes? Who
is in position to take over his events?

Bobcat doesn't mention the huge demographic hole between 20 and 60.
Been to a tournament lately? There are all those "underrated" kids
with the remainder mostly senior citizens. There are relatively few
native born players between 20 and 60 and our immigrant community in
that demographic comes and goes when they discover business is much
more profitable than chess.

If you want to complain, this is certainly the forum for it. But at
least talk sense. Talk facts. You seem caught in a time warp where
everything would be OK is those nasty kids would stop taking your
rating points.

Richard Peterson
  #4   Report Post  
Old April 6th 12, 06:36 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Time Line for USCF Memberships and Revenues

Richard Peterson is absolutely right this time. Scholastic players are
keeping the USCF alive. Without them the USCF would have collapsed
years ago.

Sam Sloan
  #5   Report Post  
Old April 6th 12, 06:36 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Time Line for USCF Memberships and Revenues

What Allen Priest is giving you is just his usual BS. He was not a
member then and knows nothing of the facts, nor can he learn them
because the records have disappeared (a fact which I note he does not
deny.)

The basic facts are that the 1999 certified financial statements for
the USCF and for several years before that show roughly $2 million in
the LMA. LMA stands for "Life Membership Assets". When a life member
joins nowadays he pays for example, $1000. However, the USCF cannot
spend this money right away. It must be held for the length of his
expected life. So, it goes into the LMA. Then, every year, for as long
as he lives, a certain amount is transferred over to general
operations to pay his dues for the year. So, for example, $40 is to be
transferred ever year and the remainder stays in the LMA account where
it draws interest.

That is the way it is supposed to work. Invariably, when ever it runs
out of money, management has used tricks to get at that money such as
by borrowing money and pledging the LMA money as security for the
loan.

In 1999 there was $2 million in the LMA. However, it was discovered
during the 2003 delegates meeting in Los Angeles, that the entire $2
million had disappeared. Also, Frank Niro, who was the USCF Executive
Director and was supposedly on his way to Los Angeles to attend the
meeting, never showed up. He had disappeared too and has never been
seen since (but we still hear from him occasionally).

However, Frank Niro had left behind a laptop computer on his desk at
the USCF Offices in New Windsor, NY. That laptop computer contained
all the USCF's financial information. However, about ten days later
the laptop computer disappeared too.

Nobody had any idea what had happened to the laptop computer until
about three years later when Frank Niro posted on the Internet a thank
you note to Susan Polgar and Paul Truong for being so thoughtful of
him as to drop by the USCF's offices and pick up the laptop computer
and bring it to him so that he could use it to write his memoirs. (The
memoirs still have not appeared.)

It was only then that we found out that Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
had stolen the laptop. What I cannot understand is why Susan Polgar,
Paul Truong and Frank Niro have all not been arrested for stealing the
laptop, especially since the laptop, if recovered, might tell us what
happened to the missing $2 million dollars.

Next remember that the $2 million was in the LMA account, which stands
for Life Membership Assets. It is supposed to be held in a segregated
fund, the Oberweis Fund, so that nobody can touch it. http://www.oberweisinvest.com/

We found out at the delegates meeting in Los Angeles that the Oberweis
account had been closed. That was the first hint or clue of any
problem, because Frank Niro had been putting out monthly reports
showing that the USCF was recording monthly record sales and profits.
It turned out that all these reports were purely fictional. Here again
we needed the laptop to perhaps find out what the real sales were.

Now, remember that every year a certain amount of LMA funds are
supposed to be transferred to operations every year to pay the annual
fictional dues of the life members. When the LMA was set up it was
decided that the average life member would live 20 years (this has now
been shown to be way too low.) Thus, 1/20th was transferred from the
LMA to operations or about $100,000 per year.

What has been going on ever since is that even though we have known
since 2003 that the LMA money is gone and lost forever, it is still
carried on the books and every year the fictional paper transfer of
$100,000 still takes place and is counted as "current income" for
accounting purposes. Thus, our books show us as getting $100,000 more
than we actually got. This is why we call it "imaginary money". Since
this has been going on for ten years, the total amount of fake money
we have received is one million dollars.

Meanwhile, the financial statements put out by the office show another
more than one million lost during that time, so we have lost another
million which is why I say that we have lost two million twice.

In response, Goichberg sycophant Allen Priest puts out his nonsense
gobbledygook above all about cash flow and other items, but the
fictional old LMA account in reality has no cash, does not exist and
thus does not flow.

All of the above has been said many, many times of course, but they
still have not explained what really happened to the missing $2
million.

The Real Sam Sloan


  #6   Report Post  
Old April 6th 12, 07:09 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Time Line for USCF Memberships and Revenues

Quote:
Originally Posted by billbrock
Some of the $2 million was frittered away when the
child molester Sam Sloan baselessly sued USCF.
This is not true either for two reasons.

First, the first two million was known to be gone by 2003. We have no
idea where it went. Some say it was lost by bad stock market
investments when the dot-com bubble burst. If so, there should be
stock market reports showing that.

My suit was covered by the insurance policy. However, Susan Polgar's
suit was not because in Susan Polgar's suit it was first Susan Polgar,
a board member, suing the USCF and then the USCF counter-suing Susan
Polgar. Neither of these suits were covered by the insurance policy.

However, just before the filing of Susan Polgar's suit, the USCF had
bought a new general insurance policy from a new company, Ansur
America Insurance Company, a member of Frankenmuth Financial Group.
This company decided that they were obliged to cover part of the Susan
Polgar litigation and for this reason agreed to provide $131,000 to
the USCF and $39,000 to Polgarís attorneys.

Sam Sloan
  #7   Report Post  
Old April 6th 12, 07:44 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.accounting
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Time Line for USCF Memberships and Revenues

Quote:
Originally Posted by SysAdmin
According to note 3 on page 10 of the audited
financial statements as of 5/31/99, there was $1,591,130 in cash and
securities in the Life Membership Asset account at the time.

The New Windsor building and property were listed at $206,740 on the
financial statement, though they were appraised at $585,000 in 1998.

By the 5/31/2004 financial statements, there was just $10 left in the
cash and securities balance, but we still owned the building in New
Windsor, which was being carried on the books (less depreciation) at
$132,800 but with an unaudited estimated appraised value of $600,000.

So, it wasn't really $2 million that was taken out of life member
assets during that time period.
Excellent. Thank you very, very much for looking this up.

Now the question is: What happened to the missing $1,591,120 in cash
and securities?

Sam Sloan
  #8   Report Post  
Old April 6th 12, 08:44 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.accounting
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Time Line for USCF Memberships and Revenues

Quote:
Originally Posted by SysAdmin
Much of it was 'loaned' to operations to cover
operational deficits in that time period, a practice that had started
by 1998 (possibly earlier) to meet the requirement that the bank line
of credit be paid down once a year.

They'd pay off the credit line, then borrow it back after the end of
the month and repay the loan from LMA. Eventually those loans, which
don't show up on the financial statements since they are intra-company
transactions, were made permanent, because operations was losing money
and had no way to repay it. They used to show up on the trial
balance, and may still be there. Don't you have a copy of that from
around 2006?

There were also market losses in the portfolio, in part because some
investments had to be liquidated below cost after the market peaked in
March of 2000 in order to keep loaning money to operations, but those
losses aren't easily determined from the audited financials.
Thank you for this explanation.

My point is that if you take each of the certified financial
statements from 1998 through 2004, you will see a small loss for every
year. However, when you add up all these losses, it comes to less than
$200,000.

Yet, $1,591,120 in cash and securities disappeared.

What happened to all the money?

Sam Sloan
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The USCF lost $344,225 - Vote for Sloan, Schultz, Goodall and Lux samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 3 February 5th 07 06:45 AM
The USCF lost $344,225 - Vote for Sloan, Schultz, Goodall and Lux samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 4 February 4th 07 04:08 PM
The USCF lost $344,225 - Vote for Sloan, Schultz, Goodall and Lux samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 February 4th 07 02:06 AM
The USCF lost $344,225 - Vote for Sloan, Schultz, Goodall and Lux samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 February 4th 07 02:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017